NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush is giving his state of the union speech now. Discuss.
Wonder if they'll find any strange folds in his wardrobe this time...

I'm not watching it. I haven't had my bullshit innoculation this month. :p

I liked how he talked about Social Security. Well laid out. So far the speech is good and well spoken.

Are you kidding? He has no idea what he's going to do.

My computer watches TV. I can watch and post at the same time :)

Are you kidding? He has no idea what he's going to do.

My computer watches TV. I can watch and post at the same time :)

He made sense of it to me. He also laid out what other people have offered to reform it. All of them good suggestions.

I'm not watching it. I haven't had my bullshit innoculation this month. :p

I know ... I've been reading your posts! :D

[ Sorry, LG, just couldn't resist! ]

I know ... I've been reading your posts! :D

[ Sorry, LG, just couldn't resist! ]

Just for that, I'm not going to let you see my 4000th post. :p

I liked how he talked about Social Security. Well laid out. So far the speech is good and well spoken.

It sounded like he was talking to 5th graders. "Hey kids, I know what Social Security is, isn't that swell?"

Didn't Clinton used to always do these from the Oval Office instead of in front of Congress so he didn't have to stop every 2 minutes for clapping? Or am I wrong?

It sounded like he was talking to 5th graders. "Hey kids, I know what Social Security is, isn't that swell?"
Well said.

Didn't Clinton used to always do these from the Oval Office instead of in front of Congress so he didn't have to stop every 2 minutes for clapping? Or am I wrong?

I think your wrong but I'm not sure!

Didn't Clinton used to always do these from the Oval Office instead of in front of Congress so he didn't have to stop every 2 minutes for clapping? Or am I wrong?
I think they've always done it there. I could be wrong too though. ;)

It sounded like he was talking to 5th graders. "Hey kids, I know what Social Security is, isn't that swell?"

I guess that is your opinion and from it, I'm guessing you don't want Social Security to be reformed (money runs out when Im FIFTY!!!!) and that your anti-Bush!

If not, I apologize!

However, his goals to reform it are good and I'm hoping that they get acted on. There are many options on the table as he said and they all should be discussed.

Didn't Clinton used to always do these from the Oval Office instead of in front of Congress so he didn't have to stop every 2 minutes for clapping? Or am I wrong?


No, but he did give many TV speeches from the Oval Office, just so one of many plump young ladies could give him a "Presidential" from under the desk, with a finger up you know where. Plus he didn't have to wear any pants while sitting there!

I guess that is your opinion and from it, I'm guessing you don't want Social Security to be reformed (money runs out when Im FIFTY!!!!) and that your anti-Bush!

If not, I apologize!

However, his goals to reform it are good and I'm hoping that they get acted on. There are many options on the table as he said and they all should be discussed.
Reform, yes. But Bush doesn't really understand what he's going to do. Investments are a good idea, but he hasn't figure out how he's going to transition it.

Reform, yes. But Bush doesn't really understand what he's going to do. Investments are a good idea, but he hasn't figure out how he's going to transition it.

Its not his job. His job is to propose the plan and let Congress do that!

There is no point watching because tradition demands that they say "The Union is Strong" irrespective of what's actually happening. It's every bit as pointless as the annual Queen's Speech in the UK. Pretty much the same content, in fact (tough year, but we did great).

I guess that is your opinion and from it, I'm guessing you don't want Social Security to be reformed (money runs out when Im FIFTY!!!!) and that your anti-Bush!

If not, I apologize!

However, his goals to reform it are good and I'm hoping that they get acted on. There are many options on the table as he said and they all should be discussed.

Social Security needs to be reformed, but the way he was speaking... well, it was pathetic. I don't need five cent words and a lesson on what Social Security is during the State of the Union address. And, sure, he said that he would discuss all options on the table THEN he went on to say what he wanted to do about it (and sounded pretty damn sure of himself).

These speeches are always given in front of all of Congress, the USSC, military leaders. It's been a tradition for years, and I doubt Clinton or anybody would deny this tradition.

Social Security needs to be reformed, but the way he was speaking... well, it was pathetic. I don't need five cent words and a lesson on what Social Security is during the State of the Union address. And, sure, he said that he would discuss all options on the table THEN he went on to say what he wanted to do about it (and sounded pretty damn sure of himself).

You may not need it but many people do need it. People don't understand everything and if you use big words, you'll lose them. Rule one of speech making, know thy audience.

There is no point watching because tradition demands that they say "The Union is Strong" irrespective of what's actually happening. It's every bit as pointless as the annual Queen's Speech in the UK. Pretty much the same content, in fact (tough year, but we did great).
Did he say the Union was strong last year? I heard it theorized that he wouldn't/couldn't because of the recession and war, but I can't remember if he did or not.

Did he say the Union was strong last year? I heard it theorized that he wouldn't/couldn't because of the recession and war, but I can't remember if he did or not.

I don't think he did either and I saw most of it and read what I missed.

You may not need it but many people do need it. People don't understand everything and if you use big words, you'll lose them. Rule one of speech making, know thy audience.
He has to use small words, because he's speaking to his supporters :\

No offense to Bush voters, but I can't see how you put him back in for 4 more years.

He has to use small words, because he's speaking to his supporters :\

No offense to Bush voters, but I can't see how you put him back in for 4 more years.

He's also speaking to democrats too! I love it how you try to make us republicans out to be dumb individuals.

You may not need it but many people do need it. People don't understand everything and if you use big words, you'll lose them. Rule one of speech making, know thy audience.

That's sad that most people in America don't have a clue about Social Security or how it works. Maybe we should worry about teaching the basics about such things in the classroom instead of worrying about gay people or trying to shove Christianity down every kid's throat.

That's sad that most people in America don't have a clue about Social Security or how it works. Maybe we shouldn't worry about teaching the basics about such things in the classroom instead of worrying about gay people or trying to shove Christianity down every kid's throat.

Its stupid to think that anyone will know how every government program works. Your in a fantasy world if you think that. Your right, most people don't know just Like I don't know how it works but I do know about it and I do know that the money won't be there when I retire.

Its stupid to think that anyone will know how every government program works. Your in a fantasy world if you think that. Your right, most people don't know just Like I don't know how it works but I do know about it and I do know that the money won't be there when I retire.

Come on, it's Social Security for crying out loud! It affects EVERYONE. You mean to tell me we shouldn't be teaching something like this in a senior year government class?

Has anyone here besides my spotted Kerry yet? It's like Where's Waldo :)

If you need a clue, he's on the far right of the left liberal column (from the behind Bush camera). Watch for the hair :D

Despite the volume of posts and comments to the contrary, I don't think Bush is quite as dumb as his opponents crack him up to be. He may not be an intellectual, but he's not retarded for crying out loud.

It sounded like he was talking to 5th graders. "Hey kids, I know what Social Security is, isn't that swell?"

He probably is as they will be the next generation who could even think of voting for him for anything.

Come on, it's Social Security for crying out loud! It affects EVERYONE. You mean to tell me we shouldn't be teaching something like this in a senior year government class?

Dude, I had a government politics class in college and we didn't talk about Social Security. Just that people pay into it and its ratio which is about 3:1 and soon to go to 2:1!

How are you going to talk about this to High School kids that don't care at all? College people maybe you could get away with it but there is alot more to government than Social Security!

Has anyone here besides my spotted Kerry yet? It's like Where's Waldo :)

If you need a clue, he's on the far right of the left liberal column (from the behind Bush camera). Watch for the hair :D

I saw him! LOL Twice or so.

Bush is right. The Dems are destroying the nation and the world through hate and partisanship.

it's been 4 years... he's still saying "nucular weapons"

Despite the volume of posts and comments to the contrary, I don't think Bush is quite as dumb as his opponents crack him up to be. He may not be an intellectual, but he's not retarded for crying out loud.

Correct. He isn't but the people on here don't seem to get that through their skulls.

It's over!

Now for 2 hours of debriefing for a 54 minute speech!

Has anyone here besides my spotted Kerry yet? It's like Where's Waldo :)

If you need a clue, he's on the far right of the left liberal column (from the behind Bush camera). Watch for the hair :D

LOL!!! I saw that too! Did you see him keep whispering things to himself and people around him? I would REALLY love to know what he's saying.

Bush is right. The Dems are destroying the nation and the world through hate and partisanship.

Well he didn't mention the dems at all and I would actually have to question this Whittier.

It's over!

Now for 2 hours of debriefing for a 54 minute speech!

Because of the applause yea it was 54 minutes when it was supposed to be around 45 minutes.

Didn't Clinton used to always do these from the Oval Office instead of in front of Congress so he didn't have to stop every 2 minutes for clapping? Or am I wrong?
You are wrong. The US Constitution requires that all State if the Unions must be delivered in person, before an assembled Congress. Hence, a state of the Union will never be given from the White House, unless it is expanded to provide room for every single member of Congress and their staffs.

Dude, I had a government politics class in college and we didn't talk about Social Security. Just that people pay into it and its ratio which is about 3:1 and soon to go to 2:1!

How are you going to talk about this to High School kids that don't care at all? College people maybe you could get away with it but there is alot more to government than Social Security!

I know there's a lot more to government to Social Security, but it should be brought up and mentioned. Hell, we even learned how to do our taxes (and had a test over it) in high school because it affected everyone. Look, it's like any other subject, kids can pay attention if they want; but at least we would be putting it on the table for them to have an idea about how it works.

You may not need it but many people do need it. People don't understand everything and if you use big words, you'll lose them. Rule one of speech making, know thy audience.
Most Americans don't have PHDs. You have to speak to them in 8th grade language. They don't understand big technical terms.

You are wrong. The US Constitution requires that all State if the Unions must be delivered in person, before an assembled Congress. Hence, a state of the Union will never be given from the White House, unless it is expanded to provide room for every single member of Congress and their staffs.

Who else thinks they're in an underground room on an air force base? :D

I know there's a lot more to government to Social Security, but it should be brought up and mentioned. Hell, we even learned how to do our taxes (and had a test over it) in high school because it affected everyone. Look, it's like any other subject, kids can pay attention if they want; but at least we would be putting it on the table for them to have an idea about how it works.

Won't argue there but in this day and age, and this predates the Bush Administration and I don't know whichone this comes under. Today, most tests and lessons are geared towards the SATS and ACTS. Kids are not learning what they need to learn. That is what happens when you have the Federal Government involved in anything! LOL

Most Americans don't have PHDs. You have to speak to them in 8th grade language. They don't understand big technical terms.

Don't tell me that! I already know that.

Didn't Clinton used to always do these from the Oval Office instead of in front of Congress so he didn't have to stop every 2 minutes for clapping? Or am I wrong?

You are wrong. State of the unions are always done before Congress, and there is always partisan clapping LOL. He did all his talks on Monica from the Oval Office.

Most Americans don't have PHDs. You have to speak to them in 8th grade language. They don't understand big technical terms.
The fact that the man behind the "No Child Left Behind Act" feels compelled to address the nation in an 8th grade tone tells me we have a problem.

Today, most tests and lessons are geared towards the SATS and ACTS. Kids are not learning what they need to learn. That is what happens when you have the Federal Government involved in anything! LOL

We can agree on this! :)

Reform, yes. But Bush doesn't really understand what he's going to do. Investments are a good idea, but he hasn't figure out how he's going to transition it.

Atleast he is adressing it.. Kerry and the Democrats want to leave it be

The fact that the man behind the "No Child Left Behind Act" feels compelled to address the nation in an 8th grade tone tells me we have a problem.

The problem pre-dates No Child Left Behind

We can agree on this! :)

Yep we can :)

Well he didn't mention the dems at all and I would actually have to question this Whittier.
He didn't mention them specifically. But everyone with intelligence knows they were the ones he was referring to. They are the ones who said they would block Social Security Reform until they get back the White House. The fact is the Dems only care about political power. They don't care about people, they don't even care bout their constituents.

You are wrong. The US Constitution requires that all State if the Unions must be delivered in person, before an assembled Congress. Hence, a state of the Union will never be given from the White House, unless it is expanded to provide room for every single member of Congress and their staffs.

Actually, you are wrong as well. The Constitution merely states that the president must report on the State of the Union. He could send a copy of the NYTimes over to Congress by currier and fulfill the responsibility.

Thomas Jefferson would send his written State of the Union to Congress because he was a poor public speaker and that set a precedent until Woodrow Wilson began giving the speech in person. Teddy Roosevelt, he of the "bully pulpit," kicked himself for not thinking of it first. Each president since Wilson has given the speech in person.

The problem pre-dates No Child Left Behind
Yes, but Bush is trying to champion education. When he thinks that America won't understand intelligent speech, it shows that he thinks he's failed as well.

He's also speaking to democrats too! I love it how you try to make us republicans out to be dumb individuals.

Yeah it is funny, considering how the poor and dropouts vote mostly democratic!

Yes, but Bush is trying to champion education. When he thinks that America won't understand intelligent speech, it shows that he thinks he's failed as well.

Wouldn't you champion Education too?

Yeah it is funny, considering how the poor and dropouts vote mostly democratic!
Actually the poor and people who drop out of high school don't even vote.

Yeah it is funny, considering how the poor and dropouts vote mostly democratic!

And just about every college professor that I've met!

Yes, but Bush is trying to champion education. When he thinks that America won't understand intelligent speech, it shows that he thinks he's failed as well.
actually its because the teachers in America have been so busy engaging hate politics that they've been neglecting their jobs, which is teaching.

And just about every college professor that I've met!
The ones who are registered as Democrats always vote Democrat and the ones registered Republican always vote as Republican.

oh thats a laugh... is anyone watching the democratic response.. suddently they want to talk about morals and now we are all "gods children" ...

actually its because the teachers in America have been so busy engaging hate politics that they've been neglecting their jobs, which is teaching.

And the teachers unions always striking wanting more money and better benefits which in turn hikes our school taxes and it keeps our kids out of schools because the teachers strike. Luckily, in my state, there is a 30 day rule. Strike for thirty days and then you go back regardless. However, that is 30 days to long for our kids to be out of school.

actually its because the teachers in America have been so busy engaging hate politics that they've been neglecting their jobs, which is teaching.

Sure. That must explain why you didn't know the Constitutional requirement for the State of the Union.

It was your teacher's fault.

oh thats a laugh... is anyone watching the democratic response.. suddently they want to talk about morals and now we are all "gods children" ...

I heard! Senator Ried needs to get back into the real world. He spouted the party line very nicely and Pelosi is doing the samething.

I love how Pelosi is comparing soldiers to an "occupying force". What an idiot.

oh thats a laugh... is anyone watching the democratic response.. suddently they want to talk about morals and now we are all "gods children" ...
Nancy Pelosi is the world's biggest patsy. Zarqawi and his followers don't believe in diplomacy. They declared war on democracy. Unlike what idiots like Pelosi want to believe, terrorists do not and will not negotiate. Their response to diplomacy to behead innocent civilians.

The fact that the man behind the "No Child Left Behind Act" feels compelled to address the nation in an 8th grade tone tells me we have a problem.
awwww, is he speaking over your level?

Whoa, that woman on the democratic response looks really speedy to me.
:p

Anyone else think Dan Rather is just about ready to whip out a State of the Union of his own?

Nancy Pelosi is the world's biggest patsy. Zarqawi and his followers don't believe in diplomacy. They declared war on democracy. Unlike what idiots like Pelosi want to believe, terrorists do not and will not negotiate. Their response to diplomacy to behead innocent civilians.

Wut a quack she is.. suddenly DEMOCRATS want a US army second to non.. and will never send our military in harms way without the proper equpitment.. nevermind the fact democrats like kerry voted AGAINSt supplimental funding for our military, and after CLINTON destroyed our military... no wonder the democrats are where they are today

I am watching fox.

Heres something to rub in the liberals face who are bashing Bush in the topic...



BUSH WON ELECTION 2004.



Good day children. Continue the flaming.

I am watching fox.

For some reason, that really doesn't surprise me.

I am watching fox.

oh comon now.. Im a republican and all.. but fox is just propaganda.. democrats make themselves look like fools all on their own.... I dont need someone telling me how they do it

oh comon now.. Im a republican and all.. but fox is just propaganda.. democrats make themselves look like fools all on their own.... I dont need someone telling me how they do it

Some people do. Not everyone is perfect.

Wut a quack she is.. suddenly DEMOCRATS want a US army second to non...CLINTON destroyed our military...

Really?

Clinton destroyed the military?

The same military that defeated Afghanistan just 9 months after Clinton left office?

The same military that occupied Iraq in less than a month?

That military?

Really?

Clinton destroyed the military?

The same military that defeated Afghanistan just 9 months after Clinton left office?

The same military that occupied Iraq in less than a month?

That military?

Both of those weren't that hard to knock over Ogiek. However, all this talk of being stretched thin? That was Clinton's doing when he hacked the military.

Both of those weren't that hard to knock over Ogiek. However, all this talk of being stretched thin? That was Clinton's doing when he hacked the military.

"A commander-in-chief leads the military built by those who came before him," then-vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney said during the 2000 campaign.

The military that beat Afghanistan and overran Iraq was built by Reagan. Clinton didn't destroy the military, although Shinseki did give it his best shot.

I love how Pelosi is comparing soldiers to an "occupying force". What an idiot.
:headbang: Yes, Pelosi goes overboard sometimes, but if our troops AREN'T "occupying" Iraq at the moment, then they must be in some other dimension, I guess. And Bush promised we won't "abandon" Iraq---just like his daddy promised HE wouldn't abandon the Kurds. We all know what happened to the Kurds after Saddam wasn't deposed. And I thought we also promised we wouldn't abandon Afganistan, too. Of course, there's always Iran to invade when we finally screw up big-time in Iraq! Sorry, but I'm 56, and I've SEEN what happens when we make promises and attempt to be the world's police. Kennedy tried it in the 60's, when we had the military might to DO something, and it didn't work then. Truman, Eisenhower, etc have ALL made promises they've broken in a heartbeat. Democrat OR Republican, politicians only live for getting re-elected, and will say whatever they think will get them another term. I'm Democrat, and a college graduate, by the way. Let's stop pointing fingers. Americans LOVE being lied to, and HATE unpleasant truths.

Really?

Clinton destroyed the military?

The same military that defeated Afghanistan just 9 months after Clinton left office?

The same military that occupied Iraq in less than a month?

That military?
Oh, geek. We won those wars despite Clinton, not because of him. Myself and many others suffered thru the Clinton years, when he used us as a force to work under the yolk of Europe, and to attack places to cover up his felonies. Shut up, and enlist, or shut and don't, either way, shut up about the military.

:headbang: Yes, Pelosi goes overboard sometimes, but if our troops AREN'T "occupying" Iraq at the moment, then they must be in some other dimension, I guess. And Bush promised we won't "abandon" Iraq---just like his daddy promised HE wouldn't abandon the Kurds. We all know what happened to the Kurds after Saddam wasn't deposed. And I thought we also promised we wouldn't abandon Afganistan, too. Of course, there's always Iran to invade when we finally screw up big-time in Iraq! Sorry, but I'm 56, and I've SEEN what happens when we make promises and attempt to be the world's police. Kennedy tried it in the 60's, when we had the military might to DO something, and it didn't work then. Truman, Eisenhower, etc have ALL made promises they've broken in a heartbeat. Democrat OR Republican, politicians only live for getting re-elected, and will say whatever they think will get them another term. I'm Democrat, and a college graduate, by the way. Let's stop pointing fingers. Americans LOVE being lied to, and HATE unpleasant truths.

THANK YOU! This is the best opinion I've heard yet. You rock!

Reform, yes. But Bush doesn't really understand what he's going to do. Investments are a good idea, but he hasn't figure out how he's going to transition it.

It's actually pretty stupid when you remember that the us govt. funds a lot of the budget from social security deposits in that year and then puts the money back when it is due.

The military that beat Afghanistan and overran Iraq was built by Reagan...
We won those wars despite Clinton, not because of him...

Bullshit.

The Clinton administration actually spent more money on defense than the previous administration of President George H.W. Bush. The smaller outlays during the first Bush administration were developed and approved by then-Defense Secretary Cheney and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell.

The Clinton administration did not coast on Reagan-era procurement funding. During the 1990s, the Pentagon invested more than $1 trillion in developing and procuring new weapons and information technology that gave U.S. forces such an unprecedented advantage in the last two U.S. military campaigns.

As many as 70 percent of all munitions dropped on Iraq were the precision-guided munitions developed and built during the Clinton administration. Funding for the JDAM program began in 1993, Clinton's first year in office. The advanced, GPS-guided Tomahawk cruise missile, which proved far more accurate and reliable than the earlier cruise missiles used in Desert Storm under the first President Bush, was funded in 1999. Unmanned aerial vehicles like the Predator and Global Hawk, which enabled U.S. forces to use combat aircraft in close air support in unprecedented ways, also originated in the Clinton years.

The Clinton administration also maintained the quality of military personnel by increasing their pay, and it improved retirement and health benefits for military retirees.

We still aren't using all the technology avaliable to us in this war. It's sad, really. With the technology we have, we really don't need many ground troups at all. We really don't need to have so many young men and women being sent home in bodybags. Why the hell this technology isn't being used more is beyond me. That is my biggest complaint right now as far as our military is concerned.

...all this talk of being stretched thin? That was Clinton's doing when he hacked the military.

The military is more overstretched now than it was when Bush took office. During the first three months of 2003, the United States had more than twice as many troops on overseas missions at any given time as it did in 2000. This has made it harder to recruit and keep the soldiers, sailors, and airmen we already have.

yes, our military is an "occupying force," being in that we are currently occupying the country of Iraq. what else would you call it?

"A commander-in-chief leads the military built by those who came before him," then-vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney said during the 2000 campaign.

and if im not mistaken, bush and cheney were elected on the promise to strength our military after clinton cut military research and the overall size of our military.. maybe we wouldn't be so over stretched today if Clinton didn't reduce the number of birgades we have in the military today.

Nothing puts an end to the stink of bullshit like opening the window and letting in a few facts.

This thread got awfully quite, awfully fast.

Nothing puts an end to the stink of bullshit like opening the window and letting in a few facts.

This thread got awfully quite, awfully fast.

im sorry.. did we have 911 before bush came into office ? do we now realize the threat of terroism.. the world isn't the same as it was before bush.. so how can u use that time as some kind of corrolation. Like i said.. if Clinton didn't hack our military up.. we wouldn't be overstreched today

Didn't Clinton used to always do these from the Oval Office instead of in front of Congress so he didn't have to stop every 2 minutes for clapping? Or am I wrong?
You're wrong. All Presidents since, Rooosevelt at least have given their speeches before Congress, if not earlier.

Agreed!

Clinton did a number on our military. If you do not believe me, I know several people that you could talk to that have nothing nice to say about Clinton and what he did with our military.

You're wrong. All Presidents since, Rooosevelt at least have given their speeches before Congress, if not earlier.
The Constitution merely states that the president must report on the State of the Union. He could send a copy of the NYTimes over to Congress by currier and fulfill the responsibility.

Thomas Jefferson would send his written State of the Union to Congress because he was a poor public speaker and that set a precedent until Woodrow Wilson began giving the speech in person. Teddy Roosevelt, he of the "bully pulpit," kicked himself for not thinking of it first. Each president since Wilson has given the speech in person.

Agreed!

Clinton did a number on our military. If you do not believe me, I know several people that you could talk to that have nothing nice to say about Clinton and what he did with our military.
LOL. I give you verifiable facts and you give me your best friend’s cousin Billy-Bob, who heard a rumor.

I’m dealing with a child.

Good night.

Like i said.. if Clinton didn't hack our military up.. we wouldn't be overstreched today

Apparently you missed my response to your previous statement. Allow me to repeat:

Bullshit.

The Clinton administration actually spent more money on defense than the previous administration of President George H.W. Bush. The smaller outlays during the first Bush administration were developed and approved by then-Defense Secretary Cheney and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell.

The Clinton administration did not coast on Reagan-era procurement funding. During the 1990s, the Pentagon invested more than $1 trillion in developing and procuring new weapons and information technology that gave U.S. forces such an unprecedented advantage in the last two U.S. military campaigns.

As many as 70 percent of all munitions dropped on Iraq were the precision-guided munitions developed and built during the Clinton administration. Funding for the JDAM program began in 1993, Clinton's first year in office. The advanced, GPS-guided Tomahawk cruise missile, which proved far more accurate and reliable than the earlier cruise missiles used in Desert Storm under the first President Bush, was funded in 1999. Unmanned aerial vehicles like the Predator and Global Hawk, which enabled U.S. forces to use combat aircraft in close air support in unprecedented ways, also originated in the Clinton years.

The Clinton administration also maintained the quality of military personnel by increasing their pay, and it improved retirement and health benefits for military retirees.

Bullshit.
No, you're bullshit

The Clinton administration actually spent more money on defense than the previous administration of President George H.W. Bush. The smaller outlays during the first Bush administration were developed and approved by then-Defense Secretary Cheney and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell. Well, you have tot ake several factors into consideration with this. First, inflation raises the pure dollar amount spent, and this cannot be avoided.
One must also remember that technology costs more over time, and the vast majority of programs were started during the Reagan era, Clinton just had to pay more to maintain these programs, so that we wouldn't become like Canada with an obsolete and falling apart military.

The cost of technology is not constant, it increases at a exponential rate. To have even covered 90% of the developments of the Reagan era, you'd have to pay more.

The Clinton administration did not coast on Reagan-era procurement funding. During the 1990s, the Pentagon invested more than $1 trillion in developing and procuring new weapons and information technology that gave U.S. forces such an unprecedented advantage in the last two U.S. military campaigns.
Of course, procurement is on a year by year basis. If you'll notice the natural increase in cost and the continuation of programs (including some unnescessary ones, like the Crusader cannon)

As many as 70 percent of all munitions dropped on Iraq were the precision-guided munitions developed and built during the Clinton administration. Funding for the JDAM program began in 1993, Clinton's first year in office. The advanced, GPS-guided Tomahawk cruise missile, which proved far more accurate and reliable than the earlier cruise missiles used in Desert Storm under the first President Bush, was funded in 1999. Unmanned aerial vehicles like the Predator and Global Hawk, which enabled U.S. forces to use combat aircraft in close air support in unprecedented ways, also originated in the Clinton years.
Also, we might want to notice that the GPS guidance package for weapons was too expensive previously, and relatively technologically unfeasible. Same goes for the UAV's. It was impossible to make UAV's without software and powersource technology made previously.

The Clinton administration also maintained the quality of military personnel by increasing their pay, and it improved retirement and health benefits for military retirees.
Tell that to the soldiers who no longer had jobs because the Clinton administration cut overall strength as it did.

No, you are wrong, and interpreting statistics wrong.

Well, you have tot ake several factors into consideration with this...


Riiiiiiiiiight.

I'll bet if Clinton's record with regard to the military had belonged to a Republican president you would be in here crowing about how the GOP kept America strong in the '90s and prepared for the dangers of the post-911 world.

Partisan hack.

Riiiiiiiiiight.

I'll bet if Clinton's record with regard to the military had belonged to a Republican president you would be in here crowing about how the GOP kept America strong in the '90s and prepared for the dangers of the post-911 world.

Partisan hack.

It seems that everyone is against you. I wonder why.

Riiiiiiiiiight.

I'll bet if Clinton's record with regard to the military had belonged to a Republican president you would be in here crowing about how the GOP kept America strong in the '90s and prepared for the dangers of the post-911 world.

Partisan hack.

It seems that everyone is against you. I wonder why.

Its stupid to think that anyone will know how every government program works. Your in a fantasy world if you think that. Your right, most people don't know just Like I don't know how it works but I do know about it and I do know that the money won't be there when I retire.
So, if you don't know how it works, how do you know that the money won't be there? Because someone told you? Bush perhaps?

You'd have your money if Bush wasn't dealing out tax cuts and approving rediculous spending bills. He's basically trying to alter the system so he can still afford what he wants to do now. He doesn't care that you won't have benefits in 50 years, just that he doesn't have the money to pay for his current run in office. I'm not saying the system doesn't need reform, just that he's the biggest part of the problem, not the system itself.

It seems that everyone is against you. I wonder why.
The ignorant and uninformed always outnumber the educated.

LOL. I give you verifiable facts and you give me your best friend’s cousin Billy-Bob, who heard a rumor.

I’m dealing with a child.

Good night.

Rumor? Like hell! I lived through it because my father is in the service. He had to suffer through it. The whole base suffered through it. I could start naming names of half the people I know on base.

You are not dealing with a child but someone who lived around the military all of his life.

Nothing puts an end to the stink of bullshit like opening the window and letting in a few facts.

This thread got awfully quite, awfully fast.
Or perhaps it was your lies and horrible attitude and cursing at people. We won the wars despite Clinton, not because of him.

Bullshit.
No, you're bullshit

The Clinton administration actually spent more money on defense than the previous administration of President George H.W. Bush. The smaller outlays during the first Bush administration were developed and approved by then-Defense Secretary Cheney and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell. Well, you have tot ake several factors into consideration with this. First, inflation raises the pure dollar amount spent, and this cannot be avoided.
One must also remember that technology costs more over time, and the vast majority of programs were started during the Reagan era, Clinton just had to pay more to maintain these programs, so that we wouldn't become like Canada with an obsolete and falling apart military.

The cost of technology is not constant, it increases at a exponential rate. To have even covered 90% of the developments of the Reagan era, you'd have to pay more.

The Clinton administration did not coast on Reagan-era procurement funding. During the 1990s, the Pentagon invested more than $1 trillion in developing and procuring new weapons and information technology that gave U.S. forces such an unprecedented advantage in the last two U.S. military campaigns.
Of course, procurement is on a year by year basis. If you'll notice the natural increase in cost and the continuation of programs (including some unnescessary ones, like the Crusader cannon)

As many as 70 percent of all munitions dropped on Iraq were the precision-guided munitions developed and built during the Clinton administration. Funding for the JDAM program began in 1993, Clinton's first year in office. The advanced, GPS-guided Tomahawk cruise missile, which proved far more accurate and reliable than the earlier cruise missiles used in Desert Storm under the first President Bush, was funded in 1999. Unmanned aerial vehicles like the Predator and Global Hawk, which enabled U.S. forces to use combat aircraft in close air support in unprecedented ways, also originated in the Clinton years.
Also, we might want to notice that the GPS guidance package for weapons was too expensive previously, and relatively technologically unfeasible. Same goes for the UAV's. It was impossible to make UAV's without software and powersource technology made previously.

The Clinton administration also maintained the quality of military personnel by increasing their pay, and it improved retirement and health benefits for military retirees.
Tell that to the soldiers who no longer had jobs because the Clinton administration cut overall strength as it did.

No, you are wrong, and interpreting statistics wrong.

The ignorant and uninformed always outnumber the educated.
And who the hell are you to decide who's educated?

So, if you don't know how it works, how do you know that the money won't be there? Because someone told you? Bush perhaps?

No, I've followed politics now long enough to know that in 2042 it'll run out. I've actually started to read up more on social security and realize that it needs to be reformed.

And who the hell are you to decide who's educated?

Part of the liberal left who considers those that aren't like him to be uneducated.

The ignorant and uninformed always outnumber the educated.
Or perhaps it is because you don't have a clue as to what you are speaking about. and stop cursing at people, it is childish, and you are not proving anyone wrong by saying bullshit to them.

No, I've followed politics now long enough to know that in 2042 it'll run out. I've actually started to read up more on social security and realize that it needs to be reformed.
In 2042 benefits are expected to be down by a quarter, and that once again is largely in fault of the Bush administration. Although it would still run out eventually, it would have lasted alot longer if we weren't spending so recklessly and not taxing enough to make up for it.

In 2042 benefits are expected to be down by a quarter, and that once again is largely in fault of the Bush administration. Although it would still run out eventually, it would have lasted alot longer if we weren't spending so recklessly and not taxing enough to make up for it.

Proof that it'll be down only a quarter please!

The Clinton administration also maintained the quality of military personnel by increasing their pay, and it improved retirement and health benefits for military retirees.

I was in the military during the Clinton years. The only time we saw a pay increase that came close to the inflation was (surprise, surprise) when he was running for re-election. The year after we recieved the minimum as required by law.

Why is it that readiness levels were at thier lowest during the Clinton years? Why didn't we have enough ammunition to supply more that one CBG at a time?

In 2042 benefits are expected to be down by a quarter, and that once again is largely in fault of the Bush administration. Although it would still run out eventually, it would have lasted alot longer if we weren't spending so recklessly and not taxing enough to make up for it.
HAHAHAHAHAHA.

That good stuff.


"We are not taxing enough to pay for an already insolvent program"

How about eliminating welfare and spending that on Social security.

I was in the military during the Clinton years. The only time we saw a pay increase that came close to the inflation was (surprise, surprise) when he was running for re-election. The year after we recieved the minimum as required by law.

Why is it that readiness levels were at thier lowest during the Clinton years? Why didn't we have enough ammunition to supply more that one CBG at a time?

Because Clinton didn't care at all about the state of the military because he felt that the world was our friend and that if we all just get along there will be no need for bombs and planes and ships and guns etc.

Or perhaps it is because you don't have a clue as to what you are speaking about. and stop cursing at people, it is childish, and you are not proving anyone wrong by saying bullshit to them.

Fuck you.

The 1999 Clinton military budget was the biggest increase since 1984

It provided for a 4.4% across-the-board raise in military pay (the biggest since 1984 and well above the inflation rate).

It provided expensive new hardware for each of the three services: new F-22 fighter jets for the Air Force, new Comanche attack helicopters for the Army, new missile-firing warships for the Navy.

It was the first sustained long-term increase in military spending since the accession of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985.

Clinton’s last budget (for 2001)

The centerpiece was $60 billion for new weapons and equipment, a whopping 33 percent increase over 1998 spending on modernization of the military's planes, tanks, ships, missiles and guns.

The budget provides for the new F-22 fighter, the V-22 tilt-rotor plane, the AV-8B and F/A-18 jets and a new amphibious assault vehicle.

The Navy got several new DDG-51 destroyers, a new attack submarine and another Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, a $4 billion item.

One quarter of the new procurement, $14.5 billion, went for the creation of a new lightweight armored vehicle to be used in low-intensity conflicts and “peacekeeping” missions, the most common deployment of American military forces in recent years.

The Clinton military budget also included a 3.7 percent military pay raise, increased health benefits and $5 billion in additional housing subsidies for military personnel living off base.

I was in the military during the Clinton years. The only time we saw a pay increase that came close to the inflation was (surprise, surprise) when he was running for re-election. The year after we recieved the minimum as required by law.

More bullshit...and piled high.

Clinton's 1999 military budget provided for a 4.4% across-the-board raise in military pay (the biggest since 1984 and well above the inflation rate).

His 2001 military budget provided for a 3.7 percent military pay raise, increased health benefits and $5 billion in additional housing subsidies for military personnel living off base.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

That good stuff.


"We are not taxing enough to pay for an already insolvent program"

How about eliminating welfare and spending that on Social security.
If you had read my earlier posts, you would have known that I advocate Social Security reform. I'm not even all that opposed to getting rid of it. I'm just saying that we would have more critical time to work out the issue rather than having to destroy it now.

Corneliu, that number comes off of democrats.org, and I know you'll say it's partisan, but keep in mind I'm talking about benefits, not the funds. The reserve funds for SS will be exhausted by 2042 no doubt, but that doesn't mean that we stop paying people then.

I'm not sure of this but hasn't privitization been tried before? I thought a previous administration tried and although it was good for the economy, the seniors now have alot less than if they had bought into regular SS.

Edit: That's right, it was Britain with Margaret Thatcher, not the U.S. that did it before. From what I've read it didn't work to well over there.

And who the hell are you to decide who's educated?
Part of the liberal left who considers those that aren't like him to be uneducated.

Well, since I'm the only one here supporting my argument with actual facts....

Besides who said I was a liberal? When was the last time you heard a liberal touting defense spending?

More bullshit...and piled high.

Clinton's 1999 military budget provided for a 4.4% across-the-board raise in military pay (the biggest since 1984 and well above the inflation rate).

His 2001 military budget provided for a 3.7 percent military pay raise, increased health benefits and $5 billion in additional housing subsidies for military personnel living off base.

and it's all coming from you. The ONLY years that military pay raises matched or exceeded inflation was in the '97 budget (3% to civilian 2.8 written during the '96 election cycle) and from '98 plus (also while pushing for a Democratic candidate. '99 (3.6%) and 2001 (4.1%). Where are you getting your #'s from? The pay gap by '99 between civilian and military jobs was 13.5%. Perhaps that's why Clinton made a push. To do otherwise would have shown his party to be opposed to the military.

BTW. The pay gap has gone from 10.5% under the 2001 budget to 4.4% under Bush for 2006.

It provided expensive new hardware for each of the three services: new F-22 fighter jets for the Air Force, new Comanche attack helicopters for the Army, new missile-firing warships for the Navy.
You mean Reagan era proposals that he just continued support? Of course he's going to give them funding, if they didn't receive funding, they'd fall apart.

It was the first sustained long-term increase in military spending since the accession of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985.
Once again, because of the increased price of technology and increased inflation. Basically, running faster to stay in the same place.

Clinton’s last budget (for 2001)

The centerpiece was $60 billion for new weapons and equipment, a whopping 33 percent increase over 1998 spending on modernization of the military's planes, tanks, ships, missiles and guns.

The budget provides for the new F-22 fighter, the V-22 tilt-rotor plane, the AV-8B and F/A-18 jets and a new amphibious assault vehicle.

The Navy got several new DDG-51 destroyers, a new attack submarine and another Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, a $4 billion item.

One quarter of the new procurement, $14.5 billion, went for the creation of a new lightweight armored vehicle to be used in low-intensity conflicts and “peacekeeping” missions, the most common deployment of American military forces in recent years.

The Clinton military budget also included a 3.7 percent military pay raise, increased health benefits and $5 billion in additional housing subsidies for military personnel living off base.
Of course I have to say that you are only showing one side of the picture with these numbers, and that's the friendly one for your side.

Of all these things, there are several useless and poor decisions in this budget, things like the V-22, a total failure as a piece of equipment.

And once again, the problem is that this money was spent because it had to be, or otherwise, we'd be in really really bad shape.

In the end, the numbers seem big in presentation, but not in reality. The picture for the military during the Clinton years was not exactly rosy,

Well, since I'm the only one here supporting my argument with actual facts....

Besides who said I was a liberal? When was the last time you heard a liberal touting defense spending?

Apparently goodfacts because they are not realfacts.

Well, since I'm the only one here supporting my argument with actual facts....

Besides who said I was a liberal? When was the last time you heard a liberal touting defense spending?
Yes, and here's their names:
1. Frankling Delano Roosevelt
2. John F. Kennedy
3. Lyndon Baines Johnson
4. And many others. Listen, Ogiek, we've seen you elsewhere, you're a liberal.

And I seem to be supporting my arguements with facts. The facts that you are using true statistics to lie. In fact, that's the entire point of my Philosophy of Statistics class. We're learning about how to tell when someone is manipulating stats, and you are clearly doing so. It's not even funny.

Everything you are doing is described in Darrell Huff's "How to Lie With Statistics." and Norton's "How Science Works."

You see, while your statistics are true, your interpreatation is incorrect.

it's been 4 years... he's still saying "nucular weapons"

I took this from Webster.com. Note the secondary pronunciation.

Main Entry: nu·cle·ar
Pronunciation: 'nü-klE-&r, 'nyü-, ÷-ky&-l&r
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or constituting a nucleus
2 a : of or relating to the atomic nucleus <nuclear reaction> <nuclear physics> b : used in or produced by a nuclear reaction (as fission) <nuclear fuel> <nuclear waste> <nuclear energy> c (1) : being a weapon whose destructive power derives from an uncontrolled nuclear reaction (2) : of, produced by, or involving nuclear weapons <the nuclear age> <nuclear war> (3) : armed with nuclear weapons <nuclear powers> d : of, relating to, or powered by nuclear energy <a nuclear submarine> <the nuclear debate> <a nuclear plant>
usage Though disapproved of by many, pronunciations ending in \-ky&-l&r\ have been found in widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, U.S. cabinet members, and at least one U.S. president and one vice president. While most common in the U.S., these pronunciations have also been heard from British and Canadian speakers.

See, it even says here that Bush is not the only one who uses it. If you're going to insult someone, KNOW THE FACTS!

Hey, did you know in 1999 Bill Clinton personally gave everyone in the military a Thanksgiving ham? He did, I swear. Of course, at the time, everyone else in America was given a giant turkey, so it was par for the course. Clinton screwed up the military, and now apologists like ogeek are scrambling around trying to establish his legacy that doesn't include felonies and disbarment.

I recommend this

Ogiek This user is on your Ignore List.

Ignore the lies and the flames.

I took this from Webster.com. Note the secondary pronunciation.

Main Entry: nu·cle·ar
Pronunciation: 'nü-klE-&r, 'nyü-, ÷-ky&-l&r
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or constituting a nucleus
2 a : of or relating to the atomic nucleus <nuclear reaction> <nuclear physics> b : used in or produced by a nuclear reaction (as fission) <nuclear fuel> <nuclear waste> <nuclear energy> c (1) : being a weapon whose destructive power derives from an uncontrolled nuclear reaction (2) : of, produced by, or involving nuclear weapons <the nuclear age> <nuclear war> (3) : armed with nuclear weapons <nuclear powers> d : of, relating to, or powered by nuclear energy <a nuclear submarine> <the nuclear debate> <a nuclear plant>
usage Though disapproved of by many, pronunciations ending in \-ky&-l&r\ have been found in widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, U.S. cabinet members, and at least one U.S. president and one vice president. While most common in the U.S., these pronunciations have also been heard from British and Canadian speakers.

See, it even says here that Bush is not the only one who uses it. If you're going to insult someone, KNOW THE FACTS!
It's called a colloquialism.

Yes, and here's their names:
1. Frankling Delano Roosevelt
2. John F. Kennedy
3. Lyndon Baines Johnson
4. And many others. Listen, Ogiek, we've seen you elsewhere, you're a liberal.

And I seem to be supporting my arguements with facts. The facts that you are using true statistics to lie. In fact, that's the entire point of my Philosophy of Statistics class. We're learning about how to tell when someone is manipulating stats, and you are clearly doing so. It's not even funny.

Everything you are doing is described in Darrell Huff's "How to Lie With Statistics." and Norton's "How Science Works."

You see, while your statistics are true, your interpreatation is incorrect.


It's sort of like his question "If phasers were invented, would the NRA support them?" in order to discredit them as either extremists or hypocrites.

Fuck you.


Good response. Ignore.

and it's all coming from you. The ONLY years that military pay raises matched or exceeded inflation was in the '97 budget (3% to civilian 2.8 written during the '96 election cycle) and from '98 plus (also while pushing for a Democratic candidate. '99 (3.6%) and 2001 (4.1%). Where are you getting your #'s from? The pay gap by '99 between civilian and military jobs was 13.5%. Perhaps that's why Clinton made a push. To do otherwise would have shown his party to be opposed to the military.

BTW. The pay gap has gone from 10.5% under the 2001 budget to 4.4% under Bush for 2006.

Military Pay The budget includes a number of military pay provisions that increase costs approximately $20.5 billion over the 2000-2005 according to DoD. The budget increases military personnel basic pay by 4.4 percent in January 2000, which equals the pay raise for federal civilians.1 This pay raise is 2.1 percentage points above the inflation rate for 2000 as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The budget increases military personnel pay by 3.9 percent each January from 2001-2005. The 2001-2005 raises match the Employment Cost Index, which is the Department of Labor's measure of civilian wage growth. In addition to the across-the-board raises, the budget changes the military pay table to increase promotion raises for mid-grade officers and non-commissioned officers by as much as 5.5 percent. These one-time increases to the pay table, effective July 1, 2000, will better reward performance and encourage talented individuals to stay in the military.

http://www.house.gov/budget_democrats/pres_budgets/fy2000/summary/cmpay.htm

"...inflation-adjusted military pay is higher now (2000) than when the Clinton-Gore era began eight years ago. Spending on training, spare parts and other basic necessities has gone up substantially as well and is now the highest in the country's history on a per troop basis."

Brookings Institution
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20001102.htm

The pay gap by '99 between civilian and military jobs was 13.5%.
from the Congressional Budget Office

"Supporters often contend there is a civilian-military pay gap of 13 percent. CBO reported, however, that its analysis of the pay gap "concludes that the figure commonly cited as a measure of that gap (13 percent) has no value in determining the appropriate level of military pay. It does not indicate whether the nation is treating military personnel fairly in the sense of offering them a standard of living comparable with that of other U.S. citizens."(9)

CBO's findings on the pay gap include the following:

"Although it is called a measure of the pay gap, the 13 percent figure is not actually based on a comparison of civilian and military pay levels. Instead, it is a comparison of changes in pay over time. It is calculated by comparing increases in military basic pay since 1982 with increases in the ECI, an index of wages in private industry. The choice of 1982 as a starting point for the comparison is essentially arbitrary, and at most, the resulting number is a measure of changes in relative pay since that date. It indicates that overall military pay has increased more slowly than civilian pay but not whether military pay is higher or lower than civilian pay."(10)

"In addition, the pay-gap calculation is faulty even as a measure of the changes in relative pay. On the military side, it looks only at basic pay without taking into account other factors that affect regular military compensation, such as food and housing allowances, the speed of promotion, and the financial benefits from the tax-free status of many allowances."(11)

"On the civilian side, it looks at average wage growth for workers who are typically older than members of the military and more likely to hold a college degree. Those demographic differences distort the comparison because wages of young high school graduates — a group more representative of the military — have risen less rapidly than wages of other civilians."(12)
After adjusting for those factors, CBO found that since 1982, the wages of enlisted personnel have risen 3 percent to 10 percent faster than those of high school graduates with a similar age distribution. The wages of officers, in contrast, have fallen between 6 percent and 12 percent over this period, relative to the wages of college-educated civilians of similar ages. "Thus, the so-called pay gap is actually negative for enlisted personnel and positive only for officers."(13)

"The point of CBO's analysis is not that the pay-gap calculation is faulty and could be improved. The message is more fundamental: that shifts in the relative wages of military and civilian personnel, cumulated over many years, are not a useful guide for policy." (14)

CBO noted that a comparison of actual pay levels for civilian and military jobs might be more useful than a comparison of the rates of increase in pay. CBO pointed out that "The results of such a pay-level comparison might be surprising. Based on current military pay, CBO finds that enlisted services members earn more than about 75 percent of U.S. male high school graduates of the same age. Similarly, officers earn more than about 75 percent of U.S. college graduates of the same age. Those findings suggest that the financial rewards of military service are fair in the sense that they are more than comparable with what private-sector jobs offer most U.S. citizens. One could still argue, however, that service members deserve even more because of their exceptional quality and devotion and the sometimes arduous and dangerous conditions in which they work" (emphasis added).(15)
CBO concluded that "although the notion of a 13 percent pay gap has little to support it, that figure has been widely publicized and just as widely misunderstood."(16)

The picture for the military during the Clinton years was not exactly rosy,

Credit military success to Clinton's policies, not Bush's defense spending spree
Philadelphia Inquirer
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/5597827.htm?1c

Clinton's Military Legacy
President Bush owes a major debt of gratitude to his predecessor.
By Steven J. Nider
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=124&subsecID=159&contentID=251793

Thank Clinton for a Speedy Victory in Iraq
By Lawrence J. Korb
The New York Times, May 13, 2003
http://www.cfr.org/pub5962/lawrence_j_korb/thank_clinton_for_a_speedy_victory_in_iraq.php

Clinton's victory in Iraq
MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6859893/

That's sad that most people in America don't have a clue about Social Security or how it works. Maybe we should worry about teaching the basics about such things in the classroom instead of worrying about gay people or trying to shove Christianity down every kid's throat.

Wish they would do that in Canada too... Oh well. We just learn that the US is stupid and one day we will rise above interbreeding mobs to our south to unite North America as one nation, Liberal, with the maple leaf as our symbol, and money sucking, corrupt French Canadians as our leaders. So far I've tuned it out, but I don't know how much longer I can last...

-snippidy snap-
Editorials, all of them. And with a specific interest, to support Bill Clinton's military policies. And we can see that the Clinton military design is not suited to dealing with insurgencies and terrorists.

Plus, if you'll kindly notice the fact that Clinton cut military man-strength severely. You can post all the pretty numbers and editorials you like, but you're still ignoring the hundreds of base closures across the nation. The thousands of soldiers suddenly without jobs, and forced to live off of base.

The fact that the technological advances made under Clinton were continuations of previous research, are totally ignored by you. The inflation of the dollar and technological prices are also notable.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm glad that Clinton didn't neglect the military, but, he didn't carry out sufficient behaviors.

Another thing to notice is that it isn't the President who controls the purse strings of the federal government.

The facts that you are using true statistics to lie...You see, while your statistics are true, your interpreatation is incorrect.
I see.

So the fact that Clinton increased overall spending on the military is true.

And the fact that he increased spending on weapons systems specifically used in Iraq and Afghanistan is true.

And the fact he increased spending on military pay is likewise true.

And the actual performance of his military in Iraq and Afghanistan is widely considered to be a success is also acknowledged to be true.

But overall my interpretation of these facts in incorrect? Because Clinton "gutted" the military, right? Left us as defenseless as Djibouti.

Gotcha.

Listen, Ogiek, we've seen you elsewhere, you're a liberal.

Let's keep labels out of this. I doubt you know what a liberal is other than shorthand for a bumpersticker mentality that means you no longer have to pay attention because you THINK you know what liberals believe.

...you're still ignoring the hundreds of base closures across the nation.
Oh, and those base closings in the '90s (they started under GHW Bush). They wouldn't have anything to do with, oh, I don't know...THE COLD WAR COMING TO AN END!!!

Since I am not 55, then I can expect to have my S.S. benefits changed in some way, maybe even curtailed. I am now 47 years old and have been paying 15.3% of my gross income (self-employed) for 30 years. Will I get that back in a check including interest so that i can invest it? Or will I be told that I should start investing whatever monies I have now cause I'm gonna be S.O.L. when the time comes for me to retire?

I don't have a problem with the government letting me invest my hard earned money, just give it back with interest and I will gladly let Bush screw everyone else. Is that how I should feel? Does this make me a compassionate conservative?

Mike

I see.

So the fact that Clinton increased overall spending on the military is true.

And the fact that he increased spending on weapons systems specifically used in Iraq and Afghanistan is true.

And the fact he increased spending on military pay is likewise true.

And the actual performance of his military in Iraq and Afghanistan is widely considered to be a success is also acknowledged to be true.

But overall my interpretation of these facts in incorrect? Because Clinton "gutted" the military, right? Left us weak as Switzerland.
I'm not saying that Clinton gutted the military. Where did I ever say that. I've said that he should have done a better job. I'm also saying that the Republican Congress had a major part to do with it as well. You might even have heard that I'm a fan of Clinton. I'm just saying that he made mistakes. And that you're using data to cover those mistakes, and you are using the data improperly. And, as I said, the manner in which you are using those numbers is improper.

Let's keep labels out of this. I doubt you know what a liberal is other than shorthand for a bumpersticker mentality that means you no longer have to pay attention because you THINK you know what liberals believe. Fine, I'm tired. I spent the last three days taking a massive political theory exam. A two day Philosophy of Stats exam and a two day anthropology exam. I'm classifying things I shouldn't be classifying.

Oh, and those base closings in the '90s (although they started under GWH Bush). The wouldn't have anything to do with, oh, I don't know...THE COLD WAR COMING TO AN END!!!
Of course the end of the cold war was a factor in the closing, but I'm saying that it was excessive. That it was taken too far. Not that it shouldn't have happened in some places, but not in as many as it did happen in.

To sum up what I'm saying, I'm criticising the extent of some of Clinton's policies, and your charge that the military is a result of Clinton. In reality, the modern military is a result of Vietnam, and it's continual evolution is important. I'm just saying you are giving Clinton too much credit.

Now, I'm going to bed. I realize I was painting an incorrect picture of what I think, but like I said, I'm tired, and I have class tomorrow morning at 9:30. So, yeah. Toodles.

Since I am not 55, then I can expect to have my S.S. benefits changed in some way, maybe even curtailed. I am now 47 years old and have been paying 15.3% of my gross income (self-employed) for 30 years. Will I get that back in a check including interest so that i can invest it? Or will I be told that I should start investing whatever monies I have now cause I'm gonna be S.O.L. when the time comes for me to retire?

I don't have a problem with the government letting me invest my hard earned money, just give it back with interest and I will gladly let Bush screw everyone else. Is that how I should feel? Does this make me a compassionate conservative?

Mike

is leaving SS the way it is now more compassionate ? so ur kids can look forward to a bankrupt system ? Essentially Bush is looking to set up a government run 401k plan for us. and its only 10% of your SS controbution which is being set aside, not the entire amout. If he does nothing for SS u can expect your SS benefits to be dramatically curtailed when ur in the middle of your retirement, up to 1/4 of those benifits lost. think you can afford that 27% decrease ?

I'm just saying you are giving Clinton too much credit.

Credit?

I condemn Clinton for his military buildup.

Bill Clinton is the only Republican I have ever voted for, I'm sorry to say.

Clinton pushed through the pro-big business, anti-environmental, anti-labor NAFTA legislation, the atrocious Telecommunications Bill (resulting in the growing trend toward media monopoly), the anti-poor Welfare Reform Act, signed the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, and implemented the prejudicial "Don't Ask, Don’t Tell" military policy, which has resulted in more gay people being expelled from the military than under the previous policy.

The truth is Clinton did almost nothing for labor or the poor (it took him seven years as president before he even visited an Indian Reservation), sold out Haiti, turned Africa policy over to a Bush appointee, put Middle East policy in the hands of Israel's lobbyists, appointed Republican William Coen as Secretary of Defense, had Republican Dick Morris as his chief political strategist and advisor (now one of FOX News' favorite talking heads), maintained full funding for the DEA, sold out grazing and mineral rights on public land, pushed through many of the changes in national security that later became part of the more comprehensive Patriot Act, and continued to fund the military at Cold War levels.

As further evidence that Bill Clinton actually represented the right wing of the Democratic Party I should add:

- Destructive logging in old-growth forests--suspended during Bush Sr.’s term--was resumed due to a loophole in an industry-environmentalist agreement supported by Clinton.

- Clinton also signed a law eliminating the Delaney Clause, which prohibited the use of any cancer-causing agents that accumulate in processed foods.

- There were at least 3 million more people uninsured in the U.S by the time the “Big Dog” left office, due to his failure to pass Health Care Reform.

- The U.S. military and economic war on Iraq, which caused more than 1 million Iraqi deaths, never let up under his reign. In fact, during his eight years in office, Clinton sent U.S. forces into combat situations nearly twice as many times as the four preceding presidents combined had over 17 years. He supported George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, which was won with a military he created.

I don't give Bill Clinton "credit" for continuing to build up a military by spending almost as much as the entire rest of the world combined.

I am just astounded that people continue to believe he was an anti-military liberal.

Its not his job. His job is to propose the plan and let Congress do that!

When I hear Congress is going to plan something I alway remember Mark Twain:

"Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."

:)

Bush is right. The Dems are destroying the nation and the world through hate and partisanship.

Whittier that was from right field. Forget your meds today?

He didn't mention them specifically. But everyone with intelligence knows they were the ones he was referring to. They are the ones who said they would block Social Security Reform until they get back the White House. The fact is the Dems only care about political power. They don't care about people, they don't even care bout their constituents.

God bless em.

Hello Pot meet Kettle!

Hmmm an amendment on marriage. Payback to the Christian masters?

actually its because the teachers in America have been so busy engaging hate politics that they've been neglecting their jobs, which is teaching.

Hey the Republicans have their hate agenda, why can't the teachers?

Nancy Pelosi is the world's biggest patsy. Zarqawi and his followers don't believe in diplomacy. They declared war on democracy. Unlike what idiots like Pelosi want to believe, terrorists do not and will not negotiate. Their response to diplomacy to behead innocent civilians.


Eww nice job linking Pelosi's name with Zarqawi's. :rolleyes:

Part of the liberal left who considers those that aren't like him to be uneducated.

Ahh there we go the liberal dirty word analogy. How is it different from those on the right that think those who disagree with them are stupid?

Plus, if you'll kindly notice the fact that Clinton cut military man-strength severely. You can post all the pretty numbers and editorials you like, but you're still ignoring the hundreds of base closures across the nation. The thousands of soldiers suddenly without jobs, and forced to live off of base.


You left off Poppy Bush. He closed them as well....

Yeah, I couldn't believe all the the pro-military stuff Clinton did. He was a real war-hawk. Man, I surprised he didn't start WW3. :rolleyes:

I'm just glad we've got a real pacifist in office now. Its a good thing he took away all those huge military increases Clinton made. :D

Yeah, I couldn't believe all the the pro-military stuff Clinton did. He was a real war-hawk. Man, I surprised he didn't start WW3. :rolleyes:

I'm just glad we've got a real pacifist in office now. Its a good thing he took away all those huge military increases Clinton made. :D

Actually I think the one thing he did was make the military more digital(As per Thunderland a GW1 vet).

Egypt leading the way to democracy in the Middle East? Is he snorting coke again?

Egypt leading the way to democracy is like putting David Duke in charge of the NAACP.

Hmmm an amendment on marriage. Payback to the Christian masters?

In the unlikely event that the US constitution was ammended to restrict the definition of marriage (which would also foul up our whole system of government, marriage being well outside the scope of the federal governments purview), you would have to grudingly admit at that point the people had spoken and abide by it if you believed in democracy.

In the unlikely event that the US constitution was ammended to restrict the definition of marriage (which would also foul up our whole system of government, marriage being well outside the scope of the federal governments purview), you would have to grudingly admit at that point the people had spoken and abide by it if you believed in democracy.

America is not a democracy.

"For the republic, for which it stands"

The concept of the republic is that the more capable people pacify those that vote them in, while keeping the stupidity of the masses from making life hell for the minorities, and from making outright stupid decisions.

You left off Poppy Bush. He closed them as well....

That was called "Fuck You California - Love, Texas"

Fort Ord's closure was a massive blow to the Bay Area.

America is not a democracy.

"For the republic, for which it stands"

The concept of the republic is that the more capable people pacify those that vote them in, while keeping the stupidity of the masses from making life hell for the minorities, and from making outright stupid decisions.

Obviously it's a republic, which is why our government is limited in what it can do, even when the majority of people want it done. That's how we safeguard our rights.

However, the constitution of the republic can, and has been amended. For that to happen at present requires the consent of the vast majority of the populus. In that sense it is a democratic process. Given the geographical and numerical supermajority required to amend the consitution, if indeed a marriage amendment was passed, an honest observe would have to admit that it did represent the will of the people.

Just because it's the will of the majority doesn't mean it should be done. Part of the governments job is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Otherwise a lot of us would still not be able to vote.

If you had read my earlier posts, you would have known that I advocate Social Security reform. I'm not even all that opposed to getting rid of it. I'm just saying that we would have more critical time to work out the issue rather than having to destroy it now.

Its not like we have forever though. Bush was right! Do it now and not wait till the last minute. If you wait till the last minute, then you'll have a crappy reform bill that wouldn't even help it.

Corneliu, that number comes off of democrats.org, and I know you'll say it's partisan, but keep in mind I'm talking about benefits, not the funds. The reserve funds for SS will be exhausted by 2042 no doubt, but that doesn't mean that we stop paying people then.

Democrats.org? Give me a better website than that!

I'm not sure of this but hasn't privitization been tried before? I thought a previous administration tried and although it was good for the economy, the seniors now have alot less than if they had bought into regular SS.

No I don't think he did try but I do know that the Feder Government have private accounts. They don't pay any money into Social Security.

Edit: That's right, it was Britain with Margaret Thatcher, not the U.S. that did it before. From what I've read it didn't work to well over there.

Yea and I'm sure that Britain screwed it up too and judging how you posted it, they did.

Its not like we have forever though. Bush was right! Do it now and not wait till the last minute. If you wait till the last minute, then you'll have a crappy reform bill that wouldn't even help it.
thats right, the best way to destroy social security is to create a false sense of urgency right now and get people to stop funding it so it can be purposefully killed

Plus, if you'll kindly notice the fact that Clinton cut military man-strength severely. You can post all the pretty numbers and editorials you like, but you're still ignoring the hundreds of base closures across the nation. The thousands of soldiers suddenly without jobs, and forced to live off of base.

Here here! My dad's base was also on the chopping block! It would've closed to except for the massive outcry of the people that live near the base. Public Support kept the base open no Thanks to President Clinton.

Since I am not 55, then I can expect to have my S.S. benefits changed in some way, maybe even curtailed. I am now 47 years old and have been paying 15.3% of my gross income (self-employed) for 30 years. Will I get that back in a check including interest so that i can invest it? Or will I be told that I should start investing whatever monies I have now cause I'm gonna be S.O.L. when the time comes for me to retire?

I don't have a problem with the government letting me invest my hard earned money, just give it back with interest and I will gladly let Bush screw everyone else. Is that how I should feel? Does this make me a compassionate conservative?

Mike

No, since you are approaching retirement age, your benefits will not change if I understood him correctly. Its mostly for people in my generation that needs to see the reforms.

Bush is not the brightest bulb in the factory. His advisors are equally dim. The state of our union is relatively good, considering the idiot under whom we have all suffered these past four years. Wow, what a lousy leader! Even beyond his ineptness, what's with that constant smirk? What a slimy spirit he must have inside him, to always be looking so smug. Yuck!

When I hear Congress is going to plan something I alway remember Mark Twain:

"Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."

:)

HAHA!! Your right but unfortunately, that is how things go.

America is not a democracy.

"For the republic, for which it stands"

The concept of the republic is that the more capable people pacify those that vote them in, while keeping the stupidity of the masses from making life hell for the minorities, and from making outright stupid decisions.

I assume you are going by a 2,400 year old definition of democracy (from ancient Greece) meaning a system in which citizens vote directly on their laws?

Setting aside the fact that the definition of a democracy has changed, even by your archaic definition the United States is both a republic (a system where citizens vote for representatives to make laws) AND a democracy.

In the U.S. we have the referendum (the procedure by which the people instead of the legislature introduce and enact a law), the recall (the procedure by which the people approve or reject a law already passed by the legislature), and the initiative (the procedure by which the people may remove an elected official from office).

All are characteristics of a democracy.

Ahh there we go the liberal dirty word analogy. How is it different from those on the right that think those who disagree with them are stupid?

First I've heard of that but I do know that if you disagree with a liberal your labeled as uneducated. I have disagreed with liberals, my Social and Political Philosophy Professor was a liberal. He and I got along fine.

My Bio teacher at a community college was a liberal and though we disagreed got along fine.

I don't think anyone should call anyone stupid unless they deserve it and have shown that they are.

You left off Poppy Bush. He closed them as well....

Not as much and not to the extent that Clinton did.

thats right, the best way to destroy social security is to create a false sense of urgency right now and get people to stop funding it so it can be purposefully killed

Dude, the money won't be there when I retire. I turn 50 that's right 50 in 2042! That is why I am going to write my Congressmen to push for Reform and to do it now.

I assume you are going by a 2,400 year old definition of democracy (from ancient Greece) meaning a system in which citizens vote directly on their laws?

Setting aside the fact that the definition of a democracy has changed, even by your archaic definition the United States is both a republic (a system where citizens vote for representatives to make laws) AND a democracy.

In the U.S. we have the referendum (the procedure by which the people instead of the legislature introduce and enact a law), the recall (the procedure by which the people approve or reject a law already passed by the legislature), and the initiative (the procedure by which the people may remove an elected official from office).

All are characteristics of a democracy.

Yep. The United States is a democratic republic. We, the people, elect the leaders. I still can't believe an idiotic war-monger was elected twice. God help the United States.

Yep. The United States is a democratic republic. We, the people, elect the leaders. I still can't believe an idiotic war-monger was elected twice. God help the United States.

God Bless America and may He keep her strong!

God Bless America and may He keep her strong!

God forgive the voters, for they knew not they did. They elected a leader who prefers war to peace.

God forgive the voters, for they knew not they did. They elected a leader who prefers war to peace.

Bull!

Dude, the money won't be there when I retire. I turn 50 that's right 50 in 2042! That is why I am going to write my Congressmen to push for Reform and to do it now.

Privatizing social security creates a huge increase in the budget deficit. Official estimates by the CBO and other reputable independent sources imply that introducing private accounts will increase the cumulative budget deficit by about $114 billion in the first year, almost $200 billion a year after ten years and over $350 billion a year in twenty years. That is over $5 trillion over the next three decades (including the interest costs of the additional debt).

Who do you think will pay that debt?

Even after 2042, Social Security is not "bankrupt": at that time, its revenues would still be able to cover about 75% of the promised benefits under current law. The fraction of promised benefits that can be paid then gradually falls from 75% to 70% in 2080. Thus, even after the Trust Fund is exhausted, a significant fraction of the benefits can be paid.

Yes, S.S. needs to be reformed, but there is no immediate crisis, as Bush would have you believe. Social Security is Bush's domestic version of Iraqi WMD.

Privatizing social security creates a huge increase in the budget deficit. Official estimates by the CBO and other reputable independent sources imply that introducing private accounts will increase the cumulative budget deficit by about $114 billion in the first year, almost $200 billion a year after ten years and over $350 billion a year in twenty years. That is over $5 trillion over the next three decades (including the interest costs of the additional debt).

Who do you think will pay that debt?

Even after 2042, Social Security is not "bankrupt": at that time, its revenues would still be able to cover about 75% of the promised benefits under current law. The fraction of promised benefits that can be paid then gradually falls from 75% to 70% in 2080. Thus, even after the Trust Fund is exhausted, a significant fraction of the benefits can be paid.

Yes, S.S. needs to be reformed, but there is no immediate crisis, as Bush would have you believe. Social Security is Bush's domestic version of Iraqi WMD.

I guess you didn't watch the speech. He did state that there wasn't a crisis but if we hold off till later, there will be. I suggest you go back and read it.

As for the 5 trillion over three decades. Three decades equals 30 years. Yea maybe it will increase the budget but I suggest to you is to go back and re-read President Bush's plan.

I guess you didn't watch the speech. He did state that there wasn't a crisis but if we hold off till later, there will be. I suggest you go back and read it.

As for the 5 trillion over three decades. Three decades equals 30 years. Yea maybe it will increase the budget but I suggest to you is to go back and re-read President Bush's plan.
Thanks for your suggestion, which tells me you can't think for yourself about the issue and prefer to just point to what a proven liar has to say about it.

Reform, yes. But Bush doesn't really understand what he's going to do. Investments are a good idea, but he hasn't figure out how he's going to transition it.
In order for the private investment money to not run out your going to need a return rate that would fund Social Security where it is now. Taxes actually pay for it as is.

So for the solution to work means you don't need to fix anything.

Is it just me or does this mean its just a scare tactic. If Social security runs out when you are fifty than why does every ecomonic person ssy otherwise.

It will be reduced benefits when you are fifty. It will be more reduced when you are dead but not run out.

You need a high annuall rate of return at 6.5 or 7 percent after inflation for next 75 years because without this assumption the schemes can't deliver on this promise.
Yet it not likely that it will be that high mathematically unless the economy grows faster than anyobe is expecting now.
In the long run, profits grow at the same rate as the economy. So tyo get 6.5 percent rate of return, stock prices would have to keep rising faster than profits decade after decade.
By 2050 the price-earnings rato would have to raise to about 70. By 2060 about 100.

But for all this to believable brings us to a catch 22:
If Social security actuaries are undertimating future economic growth than no need to worry about SS.
If economy grows fast enough to generate a rate of return that makes privatization work, it will also yeild a bonanza of payroll tax revenue that will keep the current system sound for generations to come.

Alternatively privateers can unhappily admit that future stock returns will be much lower than they claim but than their scheme collapses.

So to make Privaizing work would requite enough funds that would funds paid to govt to fund SS where it is now. So than no need to fix it.

The real kicker to the Bush privatization of Social Security? Even the Bush people acknowledge it will not do a thing to prevent the fund from being depleted.

Didn't Clinton used to always do these from the Oval Office instead of in front of Congress so he didn't have to stop every 2 minutes for clapping? Or am I wrong?

No-he liked it in the oval office better so a plump intern could felate him under the desk.

No-he liked it in the oval office better so a plump intern could felate him under the desk.
How about getting over that tired, old, boring line. How unoriginal can you be? Wanna tell knock-knock jokes next?

Bush is not the brightest bulb in the factory. His advisors are equally dim. The state of our union is relatively good, considering the idiot under whom we have all suffered these past four years. Wow, what a lousy leader! Even beyond his ineptness, what's with that constant smirk? What a slimy spirit he must have inside him, to always be looking so smug. Yuck!

He managed to get re-elected though, so swallow all of your petty opinions as to his intelligence. If you suffered under him for the past four years its only because of your small, ignorant mind. And you gauge his "smirk" as some relavent reason to dislike him? Would you have preferred John Kerry in the White House?- After all, he looks like some freak-extra from some "Lord of the Rings" fantasy. Its clear thats likely where where you spend most of your time.

How about getting over that tired, old, boring line. How unoriginal can you be? Wanna tell knock-knock jokes next?

Tired,old and boring? But true. If it werent true, you'd be shreiking it was all a lie. And if Bush had any absurd extramarital affairs, he never would have been elected, then re-elected. They couldnt find any dirt on him. They couldnt even get the crap they made up to stick. Dont dismiss it as tired old and boring. So save your snotty, psuedo-intellectual yapping for someone who agrees with you.

Tired,old and boring? But true. If it werent true, you'd be shreiking it was all a lie. And if Bush had any absurd extramarital affairs, he never would have been elected, then re-elected. They couldnt find any dirt on him. They couldnt even get the crap they made up to stick. Dont dismiss it as tired old and boring. So save your snotty, psuedo-intellectual yapping for someone who agrees with you.
Fuck off.

Tired,old and boring? But true. If it werent true, you'd be shreiking it was all a lie. And if Bush had any absurd extramarital affairs, he never would have been elected, then re-elected. They couldnt find any dirt on him. They couldnt even get the crap they made up to stick. Dont dismiss it as tired old and boring. So save your snotty, psuedo-intellectual yapping for someone who agrees with you.

Ummm, actually most people are sick of hearing about it. It's a freaking blowjob, it's not like he ate a baby on national TV or something.

And as for not finding any "dirt" on Bush, I find it odd you think extra-marital blowjobs are so terrible, yet cocaine use, drunk driving, and executing retarded people are just fine.

Fuck off is a good response, too.

YAY! War with Iran and Syria!

Fuck off.

I didnt expect a better response.

Ummm, actually most people are sick of hearing about it. It's a freaking blowjob, it's not like he ate a baby on national TV or something.

And as for not finding any "dirt" on Bush, I find it odd you think extra-marital blowjobs are so terrible, yet cocaine use, drunk driving, and executing retarded people are just fine.

I dont think they're so bad, but as President, in the White House-thats hardly the time or place. I'm glad that your standards are so low that you accept that type of behaviour. I guess you cant blame him though-I mean-look at the self-centered shrike he is married to.

Drunk driving over 25 years ago and was accepted punishment under the laws of the day. I dont hold it against a man that has clearly changed and matured. I'm not saying its right, but no one was injured-not like ted kennedy. Cocaine use-when?

Fuck off is a good response, too.

It sure is-for a feral child. Its shows the bitterness. he was re-elected and it wasnt even close. The country wasnt divided. The majority were sick and tired of liberals and voted so we dont have to deal with another one.
Dont worry-I'm sure Hillary will manipulate the next election and come close to winning. Or even win.

Thanks for your suggestion, which tells me you can't think for yourself about the issue and prefer to just point to what a proven liar has to say about it.

How is it a proven lie? The money will run out! Isn't it wise to fix it before we get to that point? Also it'll be VOLUNTARY!! Meaning OPTIONAL!!

Talk about not thinking for yourself. Besides, two of my professors think I'm politically astute for a person my age. BTW: I'm 22

The real kicker to the Bush privatization of Social Security? Even the Bush people acknowledge it will not do a thing to prevent the fund from being depleted.

Proof of this please?

YAY! War with Iran and Syria!

No one mentioned war with either nation but I'm sure that the option is on the table! I doubt war will come though.

How about getting over that tired, old, boring line. How unoriginal can you be? Wanna tell knock-knock jokes next?

Sorry, man. Clinton jokes will not die any time soon. Letterman, Leno, O'Brien, as well as the innumerable stand-up guys will be using them for at least 5 more years.

"Here's why the personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver -- and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security. In addition, you'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children and -- or grandchildren." (applaudse)

Well...

1. Where are the arguments that individuals can invest the cash better than the current system? Individuals that hasn't done too good economically during their working life will probably not do to well in ivesting their personal accounts.
2. Where does he think the money is passed along now. It is not like you take it with you in the grave. The cash that in the future won't be evenly distributed among the retires will instead be unevenly distributed. To those how have will be given.

3. It is all about his ideology on private control "And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away." If you can't count them they are not yours....

The Social Security system has to be altered, in america as well as in all countrys with "modern" demographics. The ratio of productive people to retires has to go up. Solutions are later retirement or workforce immigration. Changing banks does not increase production.

Otherwise I was impressed by the speech. Obviously Mr Bush is getting better on reading out loud.

Thanks for your suggestion, which tells me you can't think for yourself about the issue and prefer to just point to what a proven liar has to say about it.

There are two statements here, both of which I disagree with.

Firstly, most people are using other's opinions in politics. It's human nature to find an existing stance and adopt it as or own. If you don't like this, why not declare war against the 60 million or so, people who voted for the democratic ticket. I doubt a large number of them did research into their viewpoints, just as only a small number of those voting republican did adequate research. Just because people have opposing viewpoints than you doesn't mean they're not thinking for themselves. That's awfully self-agrandizing, and very juvenile.

Secondly, Bush isn't a "proven liar" as long as the person you're addressing doesn't recognize it as "proven". It's called respect for others' interpretations. We have respect for yours; please have respect for ours. Don't just assert your opinion as fact, or the "intelligent" opinion--it only unites people against you.

...Don't just assert your opinion as fact, or the "intelligent" opinion--it only unites people against you.
Why would I care?

Because respecting peoples opinions will make life easier for you and it would also cut down on the anger towards you.

he was re-elected and it wasnt even close. The country wasnt divided.

I'm not sure where you were, but here in Pennsylvania, Bush won 51% to Kerry's 49%. Doesn't get much closer unless it is a tie.

This is a silly line of arguing. There is nothing to argue except whether the money S.S. has already collected will be given back to those who paid into it or not. If it isn't then everyone has paid an extra 15.3% tax since they started working and are going to be screwed for that amount. I'd like to think I got something for that extra money I have paid into the U.S. government.

Mike

PS.

If President Bush is telling us that the government under his administration can no longer be trusted to take care of social security, then I trust him. He knows better than anyone his administration's limitations. I just don't want to be screwed out of what I have already paid into S.S.. It easily totals in the hundreds of thousands.

Because respecting peoples opinions will make life easier for you and it would also cut down on the anger towards you.I fail to see how it makes my life easier and I really don't care who is angry with me, but thanks for the advice Dr. Phil.

Don't just assert your opinion as fact, or the "intelligent" opinion--it only unites people against you.

I assert my facts as facts. I also have no problem with submitting intelligent opinions, but I'll tell you what, if submitting unintelligent opinions makes you fell better, knock yourself out. Finally, how about if I refrain from offering you advice on how and what to post and you do the same? You don't like reading my posts? Use your ignore function

I fail to see how it makes my life easier and I really don't care who is angry with me, but thanks for the advice Dr. Phil.

First time I've been called Dr. Phil. I gotta write this in my journal. That is if I kept one.

Yeah it is funny, considering how the poor and dropouts vote mostly democratic!
Elitist.
The fact is the Dems only care about political power. They don't care about people, they don't even care bout their constituents.
And you're compaining about partisanship?

Don't you love double standards.

Really?

Clinton destroyed the military?

The same military that defeated Afghanistan just 9 months after Clinton left office?

Why defend Clinton? He was no liberal. He was a Republican in all but name.

It sure is-for a feral child. Its shows the bitterness. he was re-elected and it wasnt even close.
Actually, it was close. No US President has ever been re-elected with a smaller majority over his opponent than Bush.

I hear a lot about how conservatives are tired of liberals telling them what to do. Examples? You MUST accept free speech rights! :rolleyes:

Didi it ever occur to you that liberals get tired of conservatives telling them exactly what they can and cannot do just because the Bible says so?

Dude, the money won't be there when I retire. I turn 50 that's right 50 in 2042! That is why I am going to write my Congressmen to push for Reform and to do it now.
You are 13 years old? You're much more intelligent than the average!

You are 13 years old? You're much more intelligent than the average!

Sorry! Math was never my strong Suit!

60 Years old